Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

It is certainly a valid counter to the argument that anyone who espouses "feel the attraction but never act on it" is sub-human.

The problem with that kind of statement is that it is so open-ended. Any "attraction" can be plugged in there- homosexual attraction, atrraction to children, interracial, international, etc. The criteria itself is flawed, and using it to attack homosexuals only... lacks integrity.

Quote:

It's one thing to argue which attractions are okay to act on in which contexts.

A better criteria to use than classifying "attractions" is ignoring them altogether (because we cannot read minds) and instead deal with actions, and sanction those actions which cause harm. Consensual homosexual sex does no harm, sex with a child, "consenusal" or not, does harm. And we do not have to delve into anyone's motivations, "attractions", or desires (public or secret) to determine this.

Quote:

It's quite another to blanketly assert that all attractions are okay to act on. Sling made that assertion; this is a counterexample.

A better criteria to use than classifying "attractions" is ignoring them altogether (because we cannot read minds) and instead deal with actions, and sanction those actions which cause harm.

My alma matre defined "values" as "that which we consider good, right, or important". Ayn Rand defined it as "That which one acts to gain or keep". I've always liked Rand's definition, because it's something I can test. I know what you value, because I can see your actions. I think a similar criteria is at play when evaluating others: what they desire is irrelevant, as it's an unknown. Only actions are important.

This breaks down somewhat when applied to ourselves, however. We DO know what our desires and attractions are.

Yes, because it is little more than a vehicle for prejudice. Re-read the second section of that post.

Quote:

In contrast, I believe the entire concept is quite rational.

In what way is it rational to you?

Do you realise that even "rational" notions can be incorrect if false premises are used? Hitler's extermination of the Jews was "rational" if his premises that the Jews were dangerously genetically inferior and corrupting the species had been correct (which I take great pains to state they were certainly NOT).

Sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin, so if a pedophile, a homosexual, or a heterosexual acted contrary to that, they'd be sinning.

First you say it's not your job to decide that, then you declare certain actions sins. You can't have it both ways. Are you judging other people's actions, contrary to your stated position, or are the actions of homosexuals and pedophiles not sins?

Saying something is a sin is an evaluation--a judgement. You said judgement is for God. Thus, you cannot declare something someone else did a sin, because to do so would be to judge them.

That's an important point, yes.

But not being able to judge anyone specifically as having sinned does not prevent me from conveying God's message about how a person can identify themselves as having sin.

Here's an analogy -- let's say that some people have a disease for which the primary symptoms are severe headaches and loss of vision in the left eye.

I may be able to judge from the outside that someone is reacting as though they have these symptoms, but since I'm not in their head I'm not equipped to know directly whether they have these symptoms or not. But what I can do is explain what symptoms the disease has, and let the person figure out for themselves if their experiences are consistent with it.

But not being able to judge anyone specifically as having sinned does not prevent me from conveying God's message about how a person can identify themselves as having sin.

Here's an analogy -- let's say that some people have a disease for which the primary symptoms are severe headaches and loss of vision in the left eye.

I may be able to judge from the outside that someone is reacting as though they have these symptoms, but since I'm not in their head I'm not equipped to know directly whether they have these symptoms or not. But what I can do is explain what symptoms the disease has, and let the person figure out for themselves if their experiences are consistent with it.

So you're judging, against what you consider the responsibility of some god, but it's okay because you don't really call it judging because it just looks like it might be a sin. So homosexuals and pedophiles aren't necessarily sinning when they act on their desires. It might be acceptable to your god because they don't intend to harm anyone. But it looks like sinning according to your judgement of the situation. Is that about right?

So you're judging, against what you consider the responsibility of some god, but it's okay because you don't really call it judging because it just looks like it might be a sin.

Nope.

Quote:

So homosexuals and pedophiles aren't necessarily sinning when they act on their desires. It might be acceptable to your god because they don't intend to harm anyone. But it looks like sinning according to your judgement of the situation. Is that about right?

Here's an analogy -- let's say that some people have a disease for which the primary symptoms are severe headaches and loss of vision in the left eye.

I may be able to judge from the outside that someone is reacting as though they have these symptoms, but since I'm not in their head I'm not equipped to know directly whether they have these symptoms or not. But what I can do is explain what symptoms the disease has, and let the person figure out for themselves if their experiences are consistent with it.

Anology fail. A disease, regardless of how strange it is, can be observed, tested, verified, treated, and displayed. God, and by extension, sin can not.

__________________"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

The determination of sin is a matter between each individual and God; people generally assess their own sins.

But, either way, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because God is the only one that can accurate diagnose sin, sin is therefore irrelevant.

.
As there is no such god, there is no sin.
There are -crimes- however, which the civil authorities can establish and punish for.
Activities between consenting adults should be considered as activities both parties are desiring, regardless of what any outside observer might interpret them as.

You didn't say homosexual behavior MIGHT BE a sin--you said it WAS a sin. You have to admit, it very much appears like you're judging the action to be a sin, rather than simply telling people that God said the action is a sin.

I point this out because I'm not sure what the difference between these two actions--judging something to be a sin and merely saying that it looks like it could be a sin--actually is. Again, I'm merely providing my reasoning so that you can see where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Here's an analogy -- let's say that some people have a disease for which the primary symptoms are severe headaches and loss of vision in the left eye.

The analogy is flawed, however. A better one would be the Black Death--the symptoms are pretty obvious, just as behavior is, and you appear to be doing the equivalent of going up to them and saying "You have the Plague".

You didn't say homosexual behavior MIGHT BE a sin--you said it WAS a sin. You have to admit, it very much appears like you're judging the action to be a sin, rather than simply telling people that God said the action is a sin.

It's a pretty fine distinction, I will admit. It's entirely the difference between saying "this behavior is generally sinful" and adding "therefore, what you just did is a sin".

That jump of logic, small as it may be in many cases, is what Christians are supposed to try to stay away from doing.

The determination of sin is a matter between each individual and God; people generally assess their own sins.

So pedophiles and homosexuals aren't sinning if they don't assess their actions as sins. And anything you have to say about what may or may not be a sin is irrelevant, correct? So you were wrong when you wrote this...

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin, so if a pedophile, a homosexual, or a heterosexual acted contrary to that, they'd be sinning.

The analogy is flawed, however. A better one would be the Black Death--the symptoms are pretty obvious, just as behavior is, and you appear to be doing the equivalent of going up to them and saying "You have the Plague".

But the behavior is not enough; the intent is relevant. That's the whole point behind saying "I don't know for sure"; because sin is based on the condition of the heart, and I am not granted to see into anyone's heart but mine.

The determination of sin is a matter between each individual and God; people generally assess their own sins.

But, either way, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because God is the only one that can accurate diagnose sin, sin is therefore irrelevant.

If it's between you and your god, it's irrelevant to me. I'm still on the ground with a bleeding knee and the means to provide for my family destroyed. What is your god going to do about that? What are you going to do?

On one hand you say you don't get to decide what is or is not a sin. On the other, you have decided that some actions are sins. You say it's not up to you to judge, yet you clearly do judge. So you aren't really able to articulate your position in a rational, understandable way.

Here's an analogy -- let's say that some people have a disease for which the primary symptoms are severe headaches and loss of vision in the left eye.

I may be able to judge from the outside that someone is reacting as though they have these symptoms, but since I'm not in their head I'm not equipped to know directly whether they have these symptoms or not. But what I can do is explain what symptoms the disease has, and let the person figure out for themselves if their experiences are consistent with it.

The problem with your analogy is that the disease has measurable effects on the world. A doctor can diagnose disease from outside a patient's head. He can shine a light in the affected eye and see if the patient reacts. He can observe the patient's behaviour (holding his head, popping asprin, asking him, taking an MRI, etc.) and diagnose a headache.

"Sin" does not have any affect on the world, only the emotional state of the "sinner". It's exactly as "real" as a dream.

I appreciate being stood up for, friends, but I don't even want my user name present in his head anymore, much less see it in all his quoted posts. I want him out. He's on ignore.

Anyone who attempts to manipulate me by bringing up pedophilia, knowing very well that I'm a survivor, is sub-human to me and not worthy of my time.

That makes me sad.

I still remember when she said this:

Originally Posted by slingblade

Oh very good! I didn't post here yet, because I'd seen you were already a guest and you wouldn't have seen it. But I was sad you left, and hoped you'd be back. I'd only echo just about everything everyone else has said, so...consider it echoed.

Although someone who can change their opinion of me so radically from one careless remark, I should probably not give the power to hurt me this much.

But the behavior is not enough; the intent is relevant. That's the whole point behind saying "I don't know for sure"; because sin is based on the condition of the heart, and I am not granted to see into anyone's heart but mine.

In theory, what could a homosexual have in his heart, to make his sex act with another man not a sin?

Yes, because it is little more than a vehicle for prejudice. Re-read the second section of that post.

In what way is it rational to you?

Do you realise that even "rational" notions can be incorrect if false premises are used? Hitler's extermination of the Jews was "rational" if his premises that the Jews were dangerously genetically inferior and corrupting the species had been correct (which I take great pains to state they were certainly NOT).

Since you seem to be ignoring this, let me give you an example that might make it easier to understand.
Missionary style sex is unnatural. it is not practiced by the majority of the animal kingdom and so therefore, as humans are simply another animal, it is a deviation for the norm and not something that my god wishes us to engage in. Therefore, according to the rational principle of "feel the attraction but never act on it", I declare the desire to have sex in the missionary postion to be harmless, as long as one never acts on it. Those that do, will be given humane treatment until they conform.

Although someone who can change their opinion of me so radically from one careless remark, I should probably not give the power to hurt me this much.

No offense, but welcome to the Big Kid's Table. Some of us have been through things that are extremely painful. Sometimes what you say sets someone off. You either have to learn to avoid saying those things, or learn to live with the consequences. You can't have both.

Quote:

No.

Incorrect.

It would be helpful if you coulud expand on these responses. The difference you're talking about is extremely slight, so much so that it's honestly an open question as to whether it exists or not for many of us. It's extremely difficult for me to interpret saying "Homosexuality is a sin" and "All people have sinned" (something you said at the beginning of the thread) as anything but saying that certain people have sinned--which is exactly what you're saying you aren't allowed to say.

Originally Posted by Piscivore

A doctor can diagnose disease from outside a patient's head.

I know a guy that's been diagnosed as bipolar, a guy that's been diagnosed as ADHD, and I knew a guy diagnosed with clinical depression (he hung himself). It's entirely feasible to figure out what's going on inside someone's grey matter--the entire fields of psychology and psychiatry rely on being able to do exactly that.

Why aren't Christians allowed to do what's been shown to be possible time and time agian?

Doesn't the definition of sin change with the time? The biggies like murder and theft don't change...but there are some things that are considered a sin today, but not 200 years ago...and vise versa.

200 years ago it would be considered a sin for a woman to be seen in public wearing most modern clothes. Not even a whore would be seen wearing a sleeveless shirt and shorts. Our definition of decency has changed and so has our definition of the sin of indecency.

I would think that most Christians today would consider having sex with a 12 or 13 year old to be a sin. However 200 years ago, when average life expectancy was less than 35 years, it made sense to marry as young as possible, to increase the chance of successfully bearing children, and raising them to maturity before you die. Marrying a 12 year old or even younger was completely normal, and not a sin. Today it is.

This serves as a great example for why I'm having trouble understanding the difference between saying "Homosexuality is a sin" and saying that someone sinned. I never said you erred in your post. In fact, I never even said that what you did was wrong--from my perspective, I merely gave some tactical advice, along with what I consider a rather gentle prod (YOU may not consider it gentle, but with the people I hang out with it's extremely mild). Yet you're taking offense with my post, and reacting as if I've attacked you. This is directly analogous to you saying "Homosexuality is a sin", and a homosexual taking offense to it.

What is the difference between me saying "Welcome to the Big Kid's Table" and you saying "Homosexuality is a sin"? Why is the former wrong, while the latter is perfectly acceptable?

And no, I didn't post what I did as a way to lead into this--I'm merely attempting to turn a conversation that could go south very quickly back onto the topic. It could be very useful to see your perspective on this.

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

Doesn't the definition of sin change with the time? The biggies like murder and theft don't change

That's actually not true. Well, the Commandmant hasn't changed, but what was defined as "murder" has over the years. Killing slaves and serfs wasn't murder--they were your vassles, and subject to your rules, just as you were subject to your lord's and to God's rules. Killing foreigners? Not murder for a long time--they were infidels anyway, so slaughter away. During the Crusaids it was even taken as a good thing, a way to make up for sin. And the Church has gone back and forth for centuries on whether self-defense is murder or not.

Anyone who attempts to manipulate me by bringing up pedophilia, knowing very well that I'm a survivor, is sub-human to me and not worthy of my time.

It may just be a favorite argument, one he's worked hard on and is sure about, not something chosen to hurt you. I've certainly forgotten who has what backstory, for the most part everyone here is black words on white light.

Maybe later. It's a rather well-known passage, though, and the reason I mentioned the Rennaissance and Medieval literature is to demonstrate that.

I believe it is:

Originally Posted by NIV

Matthew 5:27-28 [Jesus speaking:]

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It strikes me as being very difficult to take such a blunt statement out of context. At any rate, my learning, such as it was, indicated that it is meant bluntly and without metaphor, and probably as sexist as stated.

It strikes me as being very difficult to take such a blunt statement out of context. At any rate, my learning, such as it was, indicated that it is meant bluntly and without metaphor, and probably as sexist as stated.

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.